Sunday, March 5, 2017

THIEN -THU NGUYEN * THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Karl Marx and Engels in their Manifesto of the Communist Party wrote " the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property ".

I. PROPERTY

According to Wikipedia, property or private property is any
physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group
of persons. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has
the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy his
or her property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.

Important widely-recognized types of property include real property
(land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private
property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public
property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and
intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions,
etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.

A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that
establishes the relation between the goods/services and other persons, assuring
the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees
fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social
convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law.

Personal property, roughly speaking, is private property that
is moveable, as opposed to real property or real estate. In the common law
systems personal property may also be called chattels or personality. In the
civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or
movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another.

This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as
land and buildings. Movable property on land, that which was not automatically
sold with the land, included many kinds of livestock; in fact the word cattle
is derived from Middle English chatel, which was once synonymous with general
movable personal property.Personal property may be classified in a variety of ways. Tangible personal
property refers to any type of property that can generally be moved (i.e., it
is not attached to real property or land), touched or felt. These generally
include items such as furniture, clothing, jewelry, art, writings, or household
goods.

In some cases, there can be formal title documents that show the
ownership and transfer rights of that property after a person's death (for
example, motor vehicles, boats, etc.) In many cases, however, tangible personal
property will not be "titled" in an owner's name and is presumed to
be whatever property he or she was in possession of at the time of his or her
death.

Marx distinguished private property from personal property.
Marx did not oppose to personal property which is "Hard-won,
self-acquired, self-earned" (1), by members of the proletariat. But in
fact, communists did not follow strictly the Marx's theory .

II.
SOCIALISM BEFORE MARX

The roots of
modern Communist reach back very far. Many thinkers in the ancient time
considered that war, poverty and inequality in society were caused by the
passion of private property. To resolve this problem, they decided to abolish
private property.

He was a
Classical Greek philosopher, one of the founders of Western philosophy . Plato,
his student, always cited his teacher's ideas in his works entitled Laws
and Republic.

Socrates
dreamed of an equal society in which everybody have the same joy or sorrow,
every thing is common, not private (2).

2. Plato
(428/427 BC)

He was a
Classical Greek philosopher, writer of philosophical dialogues. Along with his
mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the
foundations of natural philosophy, science, and Western philosophy.

Like his mentor,
he looked for a classless state in which all citizen are friends, property is
banish from life, women, children are in common. He said:

The first
and highest form of the state and of the government and of the law is that in
which there prevails most widely the ancient saying, that "Friends have
all things in common."

Whether
there is anywhere now, or will ever be, this communion of women and children
and of property, in which the private and individual is altogether banished
from life, and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and
hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and
all men express praise and blame and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasions,
and whatever laws there are unite the city to the utmost-whether all this is
possible or not, I say that no man, acting upon any other principle, will ever
constitute a state which will be truer or better or more exalted in virtue .(3)

3.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 – 1865)

He was a
French politician, philosopher and socialist. He was a member of the French
Parliament . His best-known assertion is that Property is Theft!,
contained in his first major work, What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the
Principle of Right and Government (Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche
sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement), published in 1840.

III.
ANTI-COMMUNISM BEFORE MARX

1. Aristote
(469 BC–399 BC)

Socrates
and Plato were his mentors. He did not agree with his mentors about the common
property. He criticized the communism because of many reasons:

+Life in
Communism is absurd:

But, even
supposing that it were best for the community to have the greatest degree of
unity, this unity is by no means proved to follow from the fact 'of all men
saying "mine" and "not mine" at the same instant of time,'
which, according to Socrates, is the sign of perfect unity in a state. For the
word 'all' is ambiguous.

If the
meaning be that every individual says 'mine' and 'not mine' at the same time,
then perhaps the result at which Socrates aims may be in some degree
accomplished; each man will call the same person his own son and the same
person his wife, and so of his property and of all that falls to his lot. This, however, is not the way in which people would speak who
had their had their wives and children in common; they would say 'all' but not
'each.' In like manner their property would be described as belonging to them,
not severally but collectively. There is an obvious fallacy in the term 'all':
like some other words, 'both,' 'odd,' 'even,' it is ambiguous, and even in
abstract argument becomes a source of logical puzzles.

That all
persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a
fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other
sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony (4)

+Life in Communism is life of animals:

Nor is there
any way of preventing brothers and children and fathers and mothers from
sometimes recognizing one another; for children are born like their parents,
and they will necessarily be finding indications of their relationship to one
another.

Geographers
declare such to be the fact; they say that in part of Upper Libya, where the
women are common, nevertheless the children who are born are assigned to their
respective fathers on the ground of their likeness. And some women, like the females of other animals- for example,
mares and cows- have a strong tendency to produce offspring resembling their
parents, as was the case with the Pharsalian mare called Honest.[. . .]

+Life of Communism would cause assaults and homicides, quarrels
and slanders,

Other evils, against which it is not easy for the authors of such a
community to guard, will be assaults and homicides, voluntary as well as
involuntary, quarrels and slanders, all which are most unholy acts when
committed against fathers and mothers and near relations, but not equally
unholy when there is no relationship.

Moreover, they are much more likely to occur if the relationship is
unknown, and, when they have occurred, the customary expiations of them cannot
be made. Again, how strange it is that Socrates, after having made the
children common, should hinder lovers from carnal intercourse only, but should
permit love and familiarities between father and son or between brother and
brother, than which nothing can be more unseemly, since even without them love
of this sort is improper.

How strange, too, to forbid intercourse for no other reason
than the violence of the pleasure, as though the relationship of father and son
or of brothers with one another made no difference. (5)

Aristotle is an open minded philosopher. He emphasized " a
democratical education for the sons of the poor with the sons of the rich"
(6)

2.Saint
Augustine (354-430)

According to
Saint Augustine, a propertyless world was possible only in paradise - that
"Golden Age " which mankind had lost because of original sin (
7)

3. James
Harrington (1600s)

He said that
the worst possible situation is one in which the commoners have half a nation's
property, with crown and nobility holding the other half—a circumstance fraught
with instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will
exist once the commoners own most property, he suggested.(Wikipedia)

Vietnamese
people love their nation, their community , their family and freedom but they
dislike the communism:

-Each person lives in his house while alive, but in a grave after
death.

(Sống mỗi người mỗi nhà, chết mỗi người một mồ).

-No children cries for their common father

(Cha chung không ai khóc.)

-If a pagoda has too much monks, nobody closes the gate.

(Lắm sãi không ai đóng cửa
chùa.)

- If there are many monks in a funeral, the corpse would be
decayed.

And many fathers in a family, the marriage of their daughter would
be delayed (Lắm thầy thối ma, lắm cha con khó lấy chồng)

V. KARL MARX
&F. ENGELS

Marx and
Engels presented their theory of Communism, but the most prominent ideas are the
"class struggle " and "abolition of property".
But the true aim of communism is "abolition of property". In
the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels said:

"The
theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of
private property."

VI. WHY DID
MARX AND ENGELS INTEND TO ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Marx and
Engels raised the hatefulness in the heart of the workers and people in the
name of justice and equality of society. In their works such as Das Kapital,
Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels accused the capitalists of
exploitation.

In Das Kapital,
Marx and Engels said:Capital is dead labour,
that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more,
the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time
during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him.(9).

In
Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote:

The
bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the
population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated
population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property
in a few hands....

The
essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class
is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is
wage-labour....

For many a
decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the
revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production,
against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the
bourgeois and of its rule...

In
Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels' tactic is to cause the war between
the bourgeois and the proletarians to make profits for the communist party with
the idea of " class struggle".

The
proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except
by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every
other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure
and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and
insurances of, individual property.

The proletariat is served as a
screen or a tool for the ambition of power and money of the communists . Marx
and Engels proclaimed the role of master of the Communists, and the relation
between the Communism and the proletariat:

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the
most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every
country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand,
theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage
of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate
general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all
other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow
of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat (Communist Manifesto)

Marx and
Engels draw a beautiful picture of the communist paradise:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have
disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast
association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political
character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power
of one class for oppressing another.

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie
is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by
means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps
away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these
conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class
antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own
supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of
each is the condition for the free development of all. (Communist Manifesto)

VII. HOW THEY ABOLISH PROPERTY?

In the Communist
Manifesto, Marx pointed out some measures to destroy the capitalists:

These
measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in
most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally
applicable.

(1). Abolition of property in land and application of all
rents of land to public purposes.

(2). A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3). Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

(4). Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

(5). Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by
means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(6). Centralisation of the means of communication and transport
in the hands of the State.

(7). Extension of factories and instruments of production owned
by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement
of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

(8). Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial
armies, especially for agriculture.

(9). Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more
equable distribution of the populace over the country.

(10). Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition
of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with
industrial production, &c, &c.

But who are the capitalists, the rich people? In fact, the Kulaks
in USSR, the bourgeois, and the landlords in China, and Vienam were only the
poor peasants but the communists imprisoned and killed them in order to despoil
their property and threaten every people.

VIII. CRITIQUE OF THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

1.Abolition
of private property is a kind of stealing, and robbing

+A lot of religions
advise their followers doing the good, and forbid them to steal, and to rob.
The Ten Commandments shown in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 stated that
the Israelites were not to steal. These texts were a blanket early protection
of private property.

2. Private
property is human rights

+ Excepted the communist countries,
stealing and robbing is offending against the law Property rights are protected
in the current laws of states usually found in the form of a constitution or a
bill of rights. The United States Constitution provides explicitly for the
protection of private property in the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment:
The Fifth Amendment states:

Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment states: No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.

Protection is
also found in the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 17, and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen, Article XVII, and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),
Protocol 1.

Excepted the
communists, many thinkers respected the property right. By the influence of
Cicero, Thomas Hobbes (1600s) emphasized on "giving to every man his own.
Charles Comte, in Traité de la propriété (1834), attempted to justify
the legitimacy of private property. According to Adam Smith, property rights
encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and
efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market.

3.
Property right is the instinct of human kind

Evolutionary theory and
empirical studies suggest that many animals, including humans, have a genetic
predisposition to acquire and retain property. This is hardly surprising
because survival is closely bound up with the acquisition of things: food,
shelter, tools and territory. But the root of these general urges may also run
to quite specific and detailed rules about property acquisition, retention and
disposition.

Animals are known for doing certain activities without being
taught or trained. These are called their natural instincts, and they include
many activities that just simply come naturally to the animals.So do the human
beings.The first instinct an animal or baby get when it is born is the instinct
of suckling. An animal or a baby has a natural desire to be suckled by its
mother.

They need to have their mother's nipples to suck on and get the
natural milk that she provides. While suckling, the baby always raise
their hands to seize her mother 's breasts. The second instinct an animal or
a baby obtains is the one to eat. The animals live in group , they
fight the other occupying their land, their food, and they protect their
children, Land, food, children and wives are their property.

4. Nobody can
build a classless society and abolish private property even the communists.

In Communist Manifesto, Marx dreamed
of a society without individual exploitation, and national
exploitation. Marx wanted to abolish the borders of the
classes and the borders of the nations. In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will
also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be
put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation
vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

Despite Marx criticized Utopia, Marx's theory is also a Utopian
plan.Richard Pipes, former director
of Harvard’s Russian Research Center, asserts in his book, Communism: A
History, that “The Socialist utopia is an
imaginary horizon, forever retreating the closer one approaches it.”(8)

Boris Yeltsin
said: Let's not talk about
Communism. Communism was just an idea, just pie in the sky.(9)

5. The oppressor and oppressed alwaysexist in parallel in
all society.

We cannot build an equal society or classless state. In
Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote:" In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a
complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of
social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in
the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices,
serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations....

Society as a
whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two
great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."

How we can divide all of classes into two great classes ?
How about the middle class? This simplification is not correct because Marx
also mention"the middle class -- the
small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the
handicraftsmen and peasants--" (Communist Manifesto).

Supposing that society has two classes: bourgeoisie and
proletariat, or oppressor and oppressed, although the proletariat wins, two
classes still survive and stand in constant opposition to one another. We
never had a classless state because when the proletariat wins, the
workers become the ruling class and the bourgeoisie becomes the oppressed
class. It is the continuous changes in history. Although those individuals
replace the others, the oppressor and the oppressed will survive
forever.

6. What Marx
wrote and what his disciplines did are different.

In Marxian economics and
socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property"
and "personal property". The former is defined as the means of
production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based
on socialized production and wage labor; the latter is defined as consumer
goods or goods produced by an individual (10)

In Communist Manifesto, Marx also emphacised:

"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition
of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

In fact, communists seized everything and evicted the
bourgeois and their family, and forced peasants bring their oxes, hens, ploughs
into the collective farms.

They labeled bourgeois and landlords to the poor people in
order to seize their property and frighten them.

7. What do
the communists do after they seize the private property of their people?

(1). They
destroyed country.

After the
revolution, the communists seized the power, killed or imprisoned the
capitalists, and seized their property and change it into the common
property. . They etablished a dictatorship and a command economy.

Many bourgeois are the good administrators and
businessmen. On the contrary, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse tung were not the
economists but they released many great economic plans and killed many million
people in the collective farms.

In 1921 famine erupted in the Volga Region. It was caused by a
number of reasons, but the serious reason is “prodrazvyorstka.” In many
regions peasants staged riots, killing the representatives of the Bolshevik
authority. Up to 40 million people were starving. There were reports of
cannibalism.

The number of orphans and child crime grew drastically. The Soviet
government had to turn to foreigners for humanitarian aid. The Famine largely
stopped in 1922, in some regions in 1923. The total death toll was at least 5
million people.

Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the
introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization, which was
introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in
it were labeled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on
rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions, and social
pressure, although people also experienced forced labor.

Rural industrialization, officially a priority of the
campaign, saw "its development … aborted by the mistakes of the Great Leap
Forward."

The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions
of excess deaths. Estimates of the death toll range from 18 million to 45
million with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 million to
32.5 million.

South
Korea is better than North Korea, West Germany is better than East Germany.
Thus, we can conclude that the Marxist economy is not as good as the
capitalist economy and the communist leaders are the economic killers.

(2).They robbed the public property and became the New class.

The leader or
a group of communist hold the national assets, they become the lords of
the country. Communists seize the banks, robbed people of land and houses,
Communists become the red capitalists. The communists seized the
political and economic power so they spend freely the common
property.

The communists now build a " new class", living in a
luxurious live.

Communism as practiced by Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao is
an entirely different proposition. This kind of communism sets up an
authoritarian government, with the best goods and services going to those in
government.

Djilas showed that, in spite lip service to “democracy” and
a “classless society,” the Communist Party became “a new ruling and exploiting
class…unable to act differently from any ruling class that preceded them.” The
Communist Party’s “political bureaucracy” had “all the characteristics of the
earlier ones as well as some new characteristics of its own.”

Like other classes, the new class came to power by
“destroying the political, social, and other orders they met in their way.”

Unlike other classes, which arose gradually as the result of
economic and social forces, the new class promoted revolution in order “to
establish its power over society” while justifying its power from “an
idealistic point of view.”

Djilas
said: " It is the bureaucracy which
formally uses, administers, and controls both nationalized and socialized
property, as well as the entire life of society. The role of bureaucracy in
society, i.e., monopolistic administration and control of national income and
national goods, consign to it a special privileged position. Social relations
resemble state capitalism. The more so, because the carrying out of industrialization is
effected not only with the help of capitalists but with the help of the state
machine. In fact, this privileged class performs that function, using the state
machine as a cover and as an instrument.

Ownership is
nothing other than the right to profit and control. If one defines class
benefits by this right, the Communist states have seen, in the finalanalysis,
the origin of a new form of ownership or of a new ruling or exploiting class. (11)

The New Class is a phenomena in the Communist world. It appeared
first in Soviet Union.

The nomenklatura system arose early in Soviet history. Vladimir
Lenin wrote that appointments were to take the following criteria into account:
reliability, political attitude, qualifications, and administrative
ability.

Joseph Stalin, who was the first general secretary of the party,
also was known as "Comrade File Cabinet" (Tovarishch Kartotekov) for
his assiduous attention to the details of the party's appointments.

Seeking to make appointments in a more systematic fashion, Stalin
built the party's patronage system and used it to distribute his clients
throughout the party bureaucracy.

Under Stalin's direction in 1922, the party created departments of
the Central Committee and other organs at lower levels that were responsible
for the registration and appointment of party officials. Known as uchraspredy,
these organs supervised appointments to important party posts.

According to American sovietologist Seweryn Bialer, after Leonid
Brezhnev's accession to power in October 1964, the party considerably expanded
its appointment authority.

However, in the late 1980s some official statements indicated that
the party intended to reduce its appointment authority, particularly in the
area of economic management, in line with Mikhail Gorbachev's reform efforts.

At the all-union level, the Party Building and Cadre Work
Department supervised party nomenklatura appointments. This department
maintained records on party members throughout the country, made appointments
to positions on the all-union level, and approved nomenklatura appointments on
the lower levels of the hierarchy. The head of this department sometimes was a
member of the Secretariat and was often a protégé of the general secretary.

Every party committee and party organizational department, from the
all-union level in Moscow to the district and city levels, prepared two lists
according to their needs.

The basic (osnovnoi) list detailed positions in the political,
administrative, economic, military, cultural, and educational bureaucracies
that the committee and its department had responsibility for filling.

The registered (uchetnyi) list enumerated the persons
suitable for these positions.

An official in the party or government bureaucracy could not
advance in the nomenklatura without the assistance of a patron. In return for
this assistance in promoting his career, the client carried out the policies of
the patron.

Patron–client relations thus help to explain the ability of party
leaders to generate widespread support for their policies. The presence of
patron–client relations between party officials and officials in other
bureaucracies also helped to account for the large-scale control the party
exercised over the Soviet society.

All of the 2 million members of the nomenklatura system
understood that they held their positions only as a result of a favor bestowed
on them by a superior official in the party and that they could easily be
replaced if they manifested disloyalty to their patron. Self-interest dictated
that members of the nomenklatura submit to the control of their patrons in the
party.

Clients sometimes could attempt to supplant their patron. For
example, Nikita Khrushchev, one of Lazar M. Kaganovich's former protégés,
helped to oust the latter in 1957. Seven years later, Leonid Brezhnev, a client
of Khrushchev, helped to remove his boss from power.

The power of the general secretary was consolidated to the
extent that he placed his clients in positions of power and influence. The
ideal for the general secretary, writes Soviet émigré observer Michael
Voslensky, "is to be overlord of vassals selected by oneself."

Several factors explain the entrenchment of patron–client
relations. Firstly, in a centralized government system, promotion in the
bureaucratic-political hierarchy was the only path to power. Secondly, the most
important criterion for promotion in this hierarchy was approval from one's
supervisors, who evaluated their subordinates on the basis of political
criteria and their ability to contribute to the fulfillment of the economic
plan.

Thirdly, political rivalries were present at all levels of the
party and state bureaucracies but were especially prevalent at the top. Power
and influence decided the outcomes of these struggles, and the number and
positions of one's clients were critical components of that power and
influence. Fourthly, because fulfillment of the economic plan was decisive,
systemic pressures led officials to conspire together and use their ties to
achieve that goal.

The faction led by Brezhnev provides a good case study of
patron–client relations in the Soviet system. Many members of the Brezhnev
faction came from Dnipropetrovsk, where Brezhnev had served as first secretary
of the provincial party organization. Andrei P. Kirilenko, a Politburo member
and Central Committee secretary under Brezhnev, was first secretary of the
regional committee of Dnipropetrovsk.

Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, named as first secretary of the
Ukrainian apparatus under Brezhnev, succeeded Kirilenko in that position.
Nikolai Alexandrovich Tikhonov, appointed by Brezhnev as first deputy chairman
of the Soviet Union's Council of Ministers, graduated from the Dnipropetrovsk
College of Metallurgy, and presided over the economic council of Dnipropetrovsk
Oblast. Finally, Nikolai A. Shchelokov, minister of internal affairs under
Brezhnev, was a former chairman of the Dnipropetrovsk soviet.

Patron–client
relations had implications for policy making in the party and government
bureaucracies. Promotion of trusted subordinates into influential positions
facilitated policy formation and policy execution. A network of clients helped
to ensure that a patron's policies could be carried out.

In addition,
patrons relied on their clients to provide an accurate flow of information on
events throughout the country. This information assisted policymakers in
ensuring that their programs were being implemented.(Wikipedia-Nomenklatura)

According to
the journal of the Hungarian Writers Union Irodalmi Újság (Literary
Gazette) of 24 August 1956, the Communist ruling clique in Hungary was
‘more aristocratic than the Habsburgs’ (the Austrian dynasty).

They do not shop with the workers, but have special
well-stocked stores for themselves, and even on holiday at Lake Balaton they
bathe behind barbed wire fences with police guards to keep the workers away.

On 24 November, that is, after the defeat of the
insurrection, the party daily Népszabadság, in an effort to placate the
workers, still stubbornly fighting its rearguard action of strikes and go-slow
tactics, admitted that:

... one of the main reasons for the insurrection was the luxurious
life of the party officials... [and that] it must be acknowledged that a new
aristocracy was born in the ranks of the Communist movement, the bureaucrats.
These aristocrats of the regime travelled in sumptuous cars while the workers
were packed together in overcrowded trams.

They had at their disposal secret shops, where they could buy goods
not available in the ordinary shops. They surrounded themselves with guards,
secretaries, and became unapproachable to the workers. These aristocrats spent
their holidays in luxury spots, isolated from the common herd, and their children
had become true brats of rich people, insolent and conceited.

It was the extreme contrast between the luxurious life of the
privileged class and the miserable existence of the mass of the working people,
even more than their own personal frustration, that induced in the Communist
intellectuals a mood of rebellion. They suffered from the knowledge that their
talents were being prostituted in the interests of the slaveholders, and the
more sensitive and courageous among them could not remain silent. Of course,
disillusionment in the regime did not come suddenly. Doubts arose, were pushed into the background, returned, were again
banished, finally came back more strongly than ever, and as the situation
progressively deteriorated, the doubts became certainty. But some, of course, were only driven beyond doubt by the
revolution itself. The case of the former Stalinist writer, and Stalin prize
winner, Gyula Háy, is here worth noting as an example of the process of
awakening among the sincere Communists.

In discussion with a Swiss journalist, François Bondy, he said at
the beginning of November 1956 (12)

When the
communists assumed power across Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII, their
stated intention was to create a new, more democratic and egalitarian society.
However, a gulf quickly became evident between the political elite and the
masses.

In
the 1950s Yugoslav partisan and communist leader turned dissident Milovan Đilas
openly condemned the emergence of what he described as a ‘New Class’ in
communist Eastern Europe, comprised of the privileged political elite.

In post-war Eastern Europe, it was soon widely recognized
that membership of the communist party didn’t just give you political standing,
but also provided access to numerous socio-economic advantages. Possession of a party card opened the door to numerous
‘perks’, including the allocation of a superior standard of accommodation,
access to special shops (containing domestically produced goods in short supply
and imported luxury items from the West) and holidays in special health
resorts. Little wonder then, that many people have subsequently
justified their decision to join the East European communist parties, as
motivated not by any genuine ideological or political commitment, but
simply to ‘get along in life’. The higher up the power structure you climbed,
the more levels of privilege reached ridiculous proportions.

While official salary levels among the nomenklatura
(communist-era bureaucrats) remained relatively low in monetary terms, in
practice communist officials could supplement their basic income through
corruption, bribery and blat, and they also enjoyed a range of other
‘perks’.

China’s prime minister was a schoolteacher in northern China.
His father was ordered to tend pigs in one of Mao’s political campaigns. And
during childhood, “my family was extremely poor,” the prime minister, Wen
Jiabao, said in a speech last year.

But now 90, the prime minister’s mother, Yang Zhiyun, not only
left poverty behind, she became outright rich, at least on paper, according to
corporate and regulatory records. Just one investment in her name, in a large
Chinese financial services company, had a value of $120 million five years ago,
the records show.

Ho Chi Minh and his Communist groups have ruined the
country in every aspect and harmed the people to a horrible destiny: They
brought the country into slavery. They are ceding territory and sea to their
master-country. They brought only unhappiness, starvation, misery and eternal
poverty to the people. Only the groups of Communist Leaders enjoy their
luxurious life while the people of Vietnam continue to suffer.

IX. FORCED LABOR AND THECOLLECTIVIZATION

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx pointed out some measures
to destroy the capitalism, but the important measure is " Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of
industrial armies, especially for agriculture".

Indeed,
abolish private property leads to forced labor.When communists seize
all manufactures, compagnies, shops, land andprohibit individual
business, all people in the country become the slaves of the communists..

1. LOSS OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY MEANS LOSS OF WEALTH

Working in the collective farms is living in the prisons. The
prisoners would be hungry, cold, and maltreated. In the Soviet Union, in a kolkhoz, a member, called kolkhoznik
(колхо́зник, feminine колхо́зница), was paid a share of the
farm’s product and profit according to the number of workdays, while a sovkhoz
employed salaried workers. In practice, many Kolkhoz did not pay their
"members" much at all.

In 1946, 30 percent of Kolkhoz paid no cash for labor at all,
10.6 paid no grain, and 73.2 percent paid 500 grams of grain or less per
day worked. In addition the kolkhoz was required to sell their crop to the
State which fixed prices for the grain. These were set very low and the
difference between what the State paid the farm and what the State charged
consumers represented a major source of income for the Soviet government.

In 1948 the Soviet government charged wholesalers 335 rubles for
100 kilograms of rye, but paid the kolkhoz roughly 8 rubles. Nor did such
prices change much to keep up with inflation. Prices paid by the Soviet
government hardly changed at all between 1929 and 1953 meaning that the State
did not pay one half or even one third of the cost of production.

Members of kolkhoz were allowed to hold a small area of private
land and some animals. The size of the private plot varied over the Soviet
period but was usually about 1 acre (0.40 ha). Before the Russian
Revolution of 1917 a peasant with less than 13.5 acres (5.5 ha) was
considered too poor to maintain a family.

However, the productivity of such plots is reflected in the fact
that in 1938 3.9 percent of total sown land was in the form of private plots,
but in 1937 those plots produced 21.5 percent of gross agriculture output.

Members of the kolkhoz were required to do a minimum number of
days work per year on both the kolkhoz and on other government work such as
road building. In one kolkhoz the requirements were a minimum of 130 days a
year for each able-bodied adult and 50 days per boy aged between 12 and
16.

That was distributed around the year according to the
agricultural cycle If kolkhoz members did not perform the required minimum of
work, the penalties could involve confiscation of the farmer's private plot, a
trial in front of a People's Court that could result in three to eight months
of hard labour on the kolkhoz or up to one year in a corrective labor
camp.(WIKIPEDIA. Kolkhoz)

In Vietnam, the farmers were divided
into many classes. The farmer of first class was paid at the end of the harvest
time 400gr of rice ( 1 kilo of paddy) per day when he needed 1kg of rice per
day. He also needed meat, fish, vegetable and cloth. How did they live with
400gr of rice per day?

There are many Vietnamese new folklore about the Communists' exploit:
-Một người làm việc bằng ba,
Để cho cán bộ xây nhà sắm xe.
A person works as hard as three persons,
In order to build a house or buy a car for the cadre.

-Thằng làm thì đói,
thằng nói thì no,
thằng bò thì sướng.
Who works will be hungry
Who speaks will be in comfort
Who crawls will be happy

Marx accused capitalists of their exploit, but in reality, communists exploit
more than the capitalists.

Capitalists exploited the workers, but
they did not caused the death of thousand people. But under the banner of
equality, freedom, and happiness, communists killed about hundred million
people in the world of communism.

As a result, we can say that having
private property, we will have wealth. Without property we will have no food,
no money and no happiness, we are the prisoners.

2. LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY MEANS LOSS OF
FREEDOM
Private property has a relationship with freedom. The peasants, the workers in
the collective farms and collective workshops are the slaves too. On the other
hand, the communists have a lot of freedom, freedom to take the public property
for them and live in a luxurious life.

In German Ideology, Marx wrote:"

He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman,
or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means
of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive
sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes,
society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to
do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the
afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a
mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

This fixation of social activity, this
consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us,
growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our
calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till
now." (Private Property and Communism)

On the theoretical aspects, Marx was wrong. How a peasant or a worker has
freedom when they are forced to work in a collective farm or a collective
workshop?
In reality, collective farms and workshops are the prisons. In Soviet Union and
in Vietnam, nobody can leave the collective farm or collective work shop
without permission.

"In both the kolkhoz and sovkhoz, a system of
internal passports prevented movement from rural areas to urban areas. Until
1969 all children born on a collective farm were forced by law to work there as
adults unless they were specifically given permission to leave In effect,
farmers became tied to their sovkhoz or kolkhoz in what may be described as a
system of "neo-serfdom", in which the Communist bureaucracy replaced
the former landowners". (Wikipedia, Kolkhoz)

On the theoretical aspects, Marx was wrong. How a peasant or a worker has
freedom when they are forced to work in a collective farm or a collective
workshop?
In reality, collective farm and workshop are the prisons. In Soviet Union and
in Vietnam, nobody can leave the collective farm or collective work shop
without permission.

"In both the kolkhoz and sovkhoz, a
system of internal passports prevented movement from rural areas to urban
areas. Until 1969 all children born on a collective farm were forced by law to
work there as adults unless they were specifically given permission to leave In
effect, farmers became tied to their sovkhoz or kolkhoz in what may be
described as a system of "neo-serfdom", in which the Communist bureaucracy
replaced the former landowners". (Wikipedia, Kolkhoz)

3. LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY MEANS LOSS OF
MOTIVATION OF WORK

Marx believed that the communist society
is better then capitalist society. On the other hand, Marx praised the
Capitalism. In Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote:"

"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of
scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive
forces than have all preceding generations together".

In fact the communist society ìs a
society of failure. Communism in East Europe, Soviet Union collapsed totally.
China and Vietnam still conserve the communist flag but they follow the
capitalist economy.

Why the communist economy failed?

There were many ideas protesting the
abolition of private property. In Communist Manifesto, Marx repeated what the
anti-communists said:

"It has been objected that upon the
abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will
overtake us."
And Marx replied:"According
to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through
sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this
objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be
any wage labor when there is no longer any capital".

Writing this sentence, Marx aimed to
accuse the bourgeois of their laziness. Many people by their prejudge think
that the bourgeois are the lazy persons but in fact the bourgeois are the
studious persons, they work hard so they become rich.

On the contrary, many people are poor
because they want to play than to work. Moreover, they are addicted to cocaine,
or gambling or drinking.

Why the communist economy failed? In the
capitalist and the monarchical society, people have freedom in working. A man
can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general
production and thus makes it possible for him to do one thing today and another
tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the
evening, criticise after dinner.

He works hard because he has freedom,
and he has motivation to work. He works hard and happily for his purposes: to
buy a coast, to buy a car, to build a house. He works hard for his future, and
for his son, and his daughter s' future. But in communist's hell, the workers
do not have enough food, how can he dream of a car, a house?

In a word, we can conclude that:

1- Marx and his comrades are the
imaginary or deceitful persons.

2- Nobody can build a classless state
because the oppressor and oppressed always exist in parallel in all society.

3 -Nobody can abolish private property
because the public private will be seized or robbed by one man, one family or
one group.

4-Abolition of private property will
make country and people poor and miserable.
5. The communist's dream costed hundred million people 's lives.

(2)..And there is unity where there
is community of pleasures and pains --where all the citizens are glad or
grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?

No doubt.

Yes; and where there is no common but
only private feeling a State is disorganized --when you have one half of the
world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to
the city or the citizens?

Certainly.

Such differences commonly originate in
a disagreement about the use of the terms 'mine' and 'not mine,' 'his' and 'not
his.'

Exactly so. [. . .]. But would any of
your guardians think or speak of any other guardian as a stranger?

Certainly he would not; for every one
whom they meet will be regarded by them either as a brother or sister, or
father or mother, or son or daughter, or as the child or parent of those who
are thus connected with him (Socrates - ADEIMANTUS - GLAUCON - THRASYMACHUS )

(10). Capital, Volume 1, by
Marx, Karl. From "Chapter 32: Historical Tendency of Capitalist
Accumulation": "Self-earned private property, that is based, so to
say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual
with the conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private
property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of others,
i.e., on wage-labor. As soon as this process of transformation has

sufficiently decomposed the old
society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into
proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode
of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialisation of labour
and further transformation of the land and other means of production into
socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the
further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now
to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the
capitalist exploiting many laborers."